Can't say I'm really surprised. Journalists have been so indoctrinated by anti-crime groups that criminals are released because of "technicalities." These "technicalities" often include, inter alia, constitutional violations as well as, you know, "factual" innocence," which I think journalists take to mean that, where there's smoke, there's fire, just not enough smoke in this case.

But far from shocking. This is the same media that still refuses to acknowledge their complicity in the build up to the Iraq war, among other prominent sins. The same media that is hesitant to have gay journalists report on same-sex marriage, but doesn't blink at having Catholic reporters cover Emperor Palpati---er, I mean Pope Benedict.

I don't trust modern journalism on virtually all topics they cover, apart from their fluff distractions (i.e., cute animals hour). Their coverage of criminal issues, particularly local press coverage, is laughable.

I can speak best on the press' lack of understanding of local stories. I've found that more often than deliberately misrepresenting 'what went on in court today' they simply more often just miss the point. Completely.

So does my being detained and fingerprinted after a "failure to appear" 16 years ago constitute a "brush with the law"? I live in constant fear that some tiny slip-up or offhand comment I made in the past is going to figure prominently in assassinating my character during a trial. Watching "Brokedown Palace," a retooling of "Midnight Express," wasn't reassuring on that point. Doesn't really make me want to travel to third-world countries with corrupt police (isn't that all of them?) I was thinking about strategies to forstall any kind of trouble. Do I go to customs myself the minute I get to the airport and say, "I would like to help the Thai government in their fight against drug trafficking. Please search my bag in case some drug smuggler has hijacked it. I do not want to carry narcotics in my luggage." I wonder if that would fly.

So does my being detained and fingerprinted after a "failure to appear" 16 years ago constitute a "brush with the law"? I live in constant fear that some tiny slip-up or offhand comment I made in the past is going to figure prominently in assassinating my character during a trial. Watching "Brokedown Palace," a retooling of "Midnight Express," wasn't reassuring on that point. Doesn't really make me want to travel to third-world countries with corrupt police (isn't that all of them?) I was thinking about strategies to forestall any kind of trouble. Do I go to customs myself the minute I get to the airport and say, "I would like to help the Thai government in their fight against drug trafficking. Please search my bag in case some drug smuggler has hijacked it. I do not want to carry narcotics in my luggage." I wonder if that would fly. Um, literally. Ahem.

Perhaps, there is really lack of information to justify the offense, this could have meant the dismissal of the case. It is unfair to conclude that the man is guilty simply because he undergoes a trial by publicity.

Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.